GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis

[0524432]

[ QUOTE ]
Its still gambling right? Even blackjack is a game of skill albeit with a negative expectation, exclusive of counting, but you have to play it with basic skill to minimize the -ev. I just don't think the luck vs. skill arguement does any good, everybody here knows that for a skilled player to profit off of poker 9 out of 10 players must be overall losers. You are going to make the arguement that it should be legalized for that 1 in 10 skilled player? I just want to be able to gamble legally, whats wrong with that? The bottom line to making it legal is to show someone in power the money and that they are not getting it when they could be.

[/ QUOTE ]

There difference is this. No matter how optimal a players performance at a game like Blackjack, they are ALWAYS going to be looking at a negative expectation, over the long run. Keep in mind, the long run is what matters, both in poker and in life. Anyone can get lucky and pick up a 10 one night at a bar in their lifetime, but it is a combination of the luck involved with personal traits and the experience to take advantage of these situations over and over. Refer to the Nash Equilibrium. I would argue that on any given night in a bar, there are several players all using their abilities to reach the same goal. However, in most cases anyways....lol, only one player can be successful. I attest to you that the winner of this game is such because his SKILL was superior over his villain's. Agreed or not?

Contrary to the game on blackjack, poker is a game that has and can be beaten over the long run via superior skill. Proposing that the gambling that goes on in the game of blackjack is relative to that which goes on in games of poker, is to say that, for example, player such as Chip Reese , Doyle Brunson, and Stu Ungar are merely extraordinarily "lucky".